People v. Bibbes

• Decision Date: 28 September 2012
• Citation: 951 N.Y.S.2d 607,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06431,98 A.D.3d 1267
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Brandon BIBBES, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

98 A.D.3d 1267

951 N.Y.S.2d 607

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06431

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Brandon BIBBES, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Sept. 28, 2012.

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Sherry A. Chase of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (David A. Heraty of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2] ), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence based on the alleged inadequacy of the evidence of his intent to commit a crime within the dwelling. That contention is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specifically directed at the alleged deficiency in the People's proof ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919;People v. Roman, 85 A.D.3d 1630, 1630, 925 N.Y.S.2d 310,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 821, 929 N.Y.S.2d 810, 954 N.E.2d 101). Even if defendant had moved at the close of the People's proof for a trial order of dismissal directed at the alleged deficiency, his contention nevertheless would not be preserved for our review because he did not renew the motion after presenting proof ( see People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329,rearg. denied97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396). To the extent that defendant is in effect contending that the verdict was inconsistent, i.e., that his acquittal of the attempted rape and sexual abuse charges necessarily should have led to an acquittal of the burglary charge, his contention is likewise unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to object to the alleged inconsistency before the jury was discharged ( see People v. Carter, 39 A.D.3d 1226, 1227, 834 N.Y.S.2d 779,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 863, 840 N.Y.S.2d 893, 872 N.E.2d 1199).

In any event, we reject defendant's contention ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree under Penal Law § 140.25(2) when he or she “knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein, and when ... [t]he building is a dwelling.” Unless the People expressly limit their theory of liability to a specific crime based on the pleadings ( see People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 379 n. 3, 429 N.Y.S.2d 178, 406 N.E.2d 1071;People v. Kolempear, 267 A.D.2d 327, 327–328, 701 N.Y.S.2d 92,lv. denied95 N.Y.2d 799, 711 N.Y.S.2d 167, 733 N.E.2d 239) or the People effectively are so limited based on a victim's trial testimony ( see People v. Brown, 251 A.D.2d 694, 695–696, 674 N.Y.S.2d 149,lv. denied92 N.Y.2d 1029, 684 N.Y.S.2d 494, 707 N.E.2d 449), the People are required to allege and prove “only defendant's general intent to commit a crime in the [dwelling] ..., not his [or her] intent to commit a specific crime” ( People v. Lewis, 5 N.Y.3d 546, 552, 807 N.Y.S.2d 1, 840 N.E.2d 1014). Moreover, the People are not required to prove that the intended crime was in fact committed ( see People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 279, 425 N.Y.S.2d 288, 401 N.E.2d 398;People v. Porter, 41 A.D.3d 1185, 1186, 837 N.Y.S.2d 455,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 963, 848 N.Y.S.2d 32, 878 N.E.2d 616;People v. Collier, 204 A.D.2d 1064, 1064, 614 N.Y.S.2d 83,lv. denied84 N.Y.2d 824, 617 N.Y.S.2d 144, 641 N.E.2d 165).

Here, the victim testified that, after defendant knocked on her door and told her that he had an emergency and needed to use her telephone, she opened the door a crack. Defendant then “pushed the door in” and cornered the victim in the hallway, choking and slapping her. According to the victim, defendant made sexual comments to her and began fondling her breasts while his erect penis was visible through his pants. Defendant left the victim's residence only after she kneed him in the groin. The People did not limit themselves in their pleadings to the theory that defendant intended to commit a particular crime inside the victim's dwelling. Even if, as defendant contends, the People's evidence effectively limited their theory to an allegation that defendant intended to commit rape and sexual abuse, the People were required to prove only that defendant intended to commit those crimes ( see Porter, 41 A.D.3d at 1186, 837 N.Y.S.2d 455), and the jury could infer such intent “based upon the circumstances of the unlawful entry as well as [defendant's] other actions while inside the [dwelling]” ( People v. Rivera, 41 A.D.3d 1237, 1238, 837 N.Y.S.2d 460,lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 939, 862 N.Y.S.2d 345, 892 N.E.2d 411). Thus, “[i]t is of no moment that the jury acquitted defendant of sexual abuse in the [first] degree ... [T]hat crime requires proof of a completed act, whereas burglary only requires an intent to commit a crime” ( People v. Williams, 38 A.D.3d 327, 327–328, 831 N.Y.S.2d 416,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 871, 840 N.Y.S.2d 900, 872 N.E.2d 1206). Here, the jury could have found that defendant intendedto rape the victim, but that he did not come “dangerously close” to fruition ( People v. Johnson, 94 A.D.3d 1563, 1564, 942 N.Y.S.2d 753,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 962, 950 N.Y.S.2d 114, 973 N.E.2d 212 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). In addition, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

We reject defendant's further contention that Supreme Court erred in permitting the victim to testify that, on the day after the incident, defendant told the victim that he would “cap her and her daughter” because he would not go to jail for a crime he did not commit, and that defendant then pulled up his shirt and revealed “like a little gun or something like that in his waist.” It is well established that “ ‘[e]vidence of threats made by the defendant against one of the People's witnesses, although evidence of prior bad acts, [is] admissible on the issue of consciousness of guilt’ ” ( People v. Pugh, 236 A.D.2d 810, 812, 653 N.Y.S.2d 994,lv. denied89 N.Y.2d 1099, 660 N.Y.S.2d 393, 682 N.E.2d 994;see People v. Arguinzoni, 48 A.D.3d 1239, 1240, 852 N.Y.S.2d 546,lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 859, 860 N.Y.S.2d 485, 890 N.E.2d 248;People v. Maddox, 272 A.D.2d 884, 885, 708 N.Y.S.2d 769,lv. denied95 N.Y.2d 867, 715 N.Y.S.2d 222, 738 N.E.2d 370) and, here, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of that evidence outweighed any “unfair prejudice” ( People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the court should have provided a contemporaneous limiting instruction inasmuch as he failed to request such an instruction ( see People v. Burnell, 89 A.D.3d 1118, 1121, 931 N.Y.S.2d 776,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 922, 942 N.Y.S.2d 461, 965 N.E.2d 963;see generally People v. Sommerville, 30 A.D.3d 1093, 1094–1095, 816 N.Y.S.2d 651). In any event, in its jury charge, the court properly instructed the jury that the evidence could be considered only as evidence of defendant's consciousness of guilt, and the jury is presumed to have followed that instruction ( see People v. Wallace, 59 A.D.3d 1069, 1070, 873 N.Y.S.2d 403,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 861, 881 N.Y.S.2d 672, 909 N.E.2d 595).

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, we conclude that he was not denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to assert the right of defendant to testify before the grand jury. “In contrast to a defendant's right to testify at trial, a defendant's right to...